What does a Section 75 claim actually get you?

wld70

We are currently going through a Section 75 claim and the offers seem lacking given our understanding of the matter. When we first got in touch with them, we were told 'you would not be out of pocket.'

However, the claim is about some faulty work done on the house, and the offer from the Section 75 team is only the cost of removing the faulty installation and repairing/restoring the house to how it was prior to any work being done. We are now being told that they are not liable for the money we paid out in the first place. In my mind this is us being out of pocket.

Has anyone else had this sort of experience or are they trying to keep the costs down? 

Any advice is much appreciated.

Thank you.

Okell

You need to give more details.

s 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 gives you the same legal remedies against your credit provider as against your builder.  So without knowing what the circumstances are of your claim against the builder it's difficult to tell you what a s75 remedy will get you.  It depends...

1.  What are you actually claiming for and what sort of value are we talking about?

2.  Presumably you paid by credit card?

3.  Who is "the s 75 team"?  I presume you are trying to get your credit card provider to pay you a s75 refund?

More background details please.

PHK

It's an unfortunate fact that many people think S75 is a refund service. It isn't, it's for putting you in the position you would have been had the failure or error not occurred. 

If an item is completely missing then you are likely to get a refund unless they can procur the item. 

So for a faulty item, you'll often get a repair or replacement unless it's a small item. 

For something like building work or a service, your rights against the builder would have been for the work to be completed to a good standard. So that's what S75 will do. Exactly how that happens is up to discussion. But ultimately if you are dissatisfied you can complain and if still not happy then approach the Financial Ombudsman Service (but before you do, check their previous decisions)

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Hello OP

Where valid, Section 75 just means that you have the same rights against the credit provider as you would against the trader. 

wld70 said:

However, the claim is about some faulty work done on the house, and the offer from the Section 75 team is only the cost of removing the faulty installation and repairing/restoring the house to how it was prior to any work being done. We are now being told that they are not liable for the money we paid out in the first place. 

This really depends. 

For the original payment, if the service wasn't carried out with due care and skill you are entitled to a price reduction to reflect the difference in what was paid for and what was received. 

If the cost of seeing the contract fully performed is greater than the original price paid then the extra is, AFAIK, damages. 

If you pay someone to install a stud wall to split a bedroom in two and they bodge the job to the point it needs completely redoing your claim is to be in the position you would have had been in should they have done the job correctly.

So rather than bodged wall taken out and room made good to how it was before you'd be entitled to (typically the cost of) removing and having it redone correctly minus the what you paid as your loss is only the extra rather than the extra + the original payment. 

If you paid a plumber to run new pipework with copper and they used plastic, it might be the case that the plastic is sufficient so instead you could claim a price reduction to reflect the difference in material cost  (and labour if there is any).

For us to advise specifically you'd have to let us know specifically what's happened

PHK said:

So for a faulty item, you'll often get a repair or replacement unless it's a small item. 

There was a discussion recently about what happens to rejected goods when the credit card company refunds and conclusion appeared to be a credit provider probably doesn't want them back. 

Always happy to be corrected, but I would have thought the credit provider would be more likely to hand out the money than going to the trouble of repairing/replacing goods? 

I know it's often said on here the trader has a choice between repair/replace/refund but it is instead the case that the consumer has the right to a repair/replacement (caveats aside) so the credit provider doing such would be correct but without a court awarding specific performance it feels the easiest option for them is to refund.  

DullGreyGuy

wld70 said:

However, the claim is about some faulty work done on the house, and the offer from the Section 75 team is only the cost of removing the faulty installation and repairing/restoring the house to how it was prior to any work being done. We are now being told that they are not liable for the money we paid out in the first place. In my mind this is us being out of pocket.

Has anyone else had this sort of experience or are they trying to keep the costs down? 

Details are required but...

Lets say you paid £2,000 for a new doorway to be put in and they but a big hole in the wall for it, ordered the wrong style of door and then abandoned the job.

If the bank is saying they'll just repair the whole in the wall back to being a solid wall then I'd agree that is not a reasonable resolution under S75. 

The bank would most sensibly pay the cost for another merchant to fit the correct door in the existing hole .

If for example they knocked the hole in the wrong place too and quotes were coming in silly money then the bank could simply unwind the contract which would be fixing the hole and refunding the £2,000

wld70

Thank you everyone for the replies.

Ok, details: it was for spray foam roof insulation, ~£9000. We gave the company 6 months and multiple calls and visits, where they said the job was incomplete and the paperwork with guarantees/warranty was forthcoming. After that period we contacted the credit card's Section 75 team.

This then leads into my original question details, where a third party inspector declared the material used to be wrong for domestic purposes. 

So the offer is to cover removal of the foam, inspection and repair of any damage done by the material and then reinsulate using a similar to the original insulation that had been removed as part of the foam insulation work. 

The confusion has been that the house is being put to 'rights' but we are still down the £9000, which we felt was contrary to the credit card's Section 75 team's initial statement 'you will not be out of pocket.' 

It also seems the company that sold the spray foam insulation is now reopening under a new name, as the original is now under investigation by Trading Standards and has been referred to the Procurator Fiscal.  

Perhaps it was a combination of their poor choice of words and our wishful thinking.

WLD70

DullGreyGuy

As you say, they are incorrect if they do as you are saying they are suggesting as you are still £9k down... if they refunded that and made good the property then that would be an appropriate resolution as would reinstating the property but using correct spray foam without any refund. 

born_again

wld70 said:

Thank you everyone for the replies.

Ok, details: it was for spray foam roof insulation, ~£9000. We gave the company 6 months and multiple calls and visits, where they said the job was incomplete and the paperwork with guarantees/warranty was forthcoming. After that period we contacted the credit card's Section 75 team.

This then leads into my original question details, where a third party inspector declared the material used to be wrong for domestic purposes. 

So the offer is to cover removal of the foam, inspection and repair of any damage done by the material and then reinsulate using a similar to the original insulation that had been removed as part of the foam insulation work. 

The confusion has been that the house is being put to 'rights' but we are still down the £9000, which we felt was contrary to the credit card's Section 75 team's initial statement 'you will not be out of pocket.' 

It also seems the company that sold the spray foam insulation is now reopening under a new name, as the original is now under investigation by Trading Standards and has been referred to the Procurator Fiscal.  

Perhaps it was a combination of their poor choice of words and our wishful thinking.

WLD70

Best get it removed.

As some lenders will not mortgage a house with this installed.

https://www.mortgageable.co.uk/mortgages/spray-foam-insulation-mortgage-problems/

So I would take the offer, as it may well cost far more than the £9K to sort out.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

wld70 said:

Thank you everyone for the replies.

Ok, details: it was for spray foam roof insulation, ~£9000. We gave the company 6 months and multiple calls and visits, where they said the job was incomplete and the paperwork with guarantees/warranty was forthcoming. After that period we contacted the credit card's Section 75 team.

This then leads into my original question details, where a third party inspector declared the material used to be wrong for domestic purposes. 

So the offer is to cover removal of the foam, inspection and repair of any damage done by the material and then reinsulate using a similar to the original insulation that had been removed as part of the foam insulation work. 

The confusion has been that the house is being put to 'rights' but we are still down the £9000, which we felt was contrary to the credit card's Section 75 team's initial statement 'you will not be out of pocket.' 

It also seems the company that sold the spray foam insulation is now reopening under a new name, as the original is now under investigation by Trading Standards and has been referred to the Procurator Fiscal.  

Perhaps it was a combination of their poor choice of words and our wishful thinking.

WLD70

Assuming this is the stuff they spray on the underside of the tiles, as above, have it removed and don't put it back  

It's a terrible thing in my view, smothers the timbers and then if you get a small unknown leak the timbers will stay wet and rot. 

Is this a loft space or has it been converted into an area/living space?

Usually a loft space would have 300mm of rockwall sitting on top of the plasterboard (that forms the upstairs celling) 150mm between the joists with 150mm running at a right angle.

If you have plasterboarded out the loft area then you'd put thickest possible Celotex type board between the roof rafters with a 25mm air gap between the Celotex type board and the roof tiles. 

If you required more insulation than that you'd overboard with more Celotex type board or insulated backed plasterboard. 

That's my amateur view, a post on the DIY board with specifics of your roof/loft space will give a better insight. Best to avoid duplicate posts so if posting on the DIY stick to roof insulation rather than S75/consumer rights which we'll answer here  

The spay foam is likely worthless so having it put back how it was should be good, I'd assume you'd be due the £9k back as well unless the remedial work they do is of a better standard/quality/benefit than you originally had. 

Have you asked their reasoning as to why they won't refund the £9k?

wld70

The Section 75 team say they are not required to refund the original outlay.

DullGreyGuy

wld70 said:

The Section 75 team say they are not required to refund the original outlay.

Then put in the complaint and get prepared to go to the ombudsman. 

They are right in that they dont have to refund the original outlay but if they dont do that they need to ensure the contract is completed appropriate instead.